4 ms·
I agree that we all have blind spots and that diversity in decision-makers can help correct these. If this principle was applied consistently across any dimens
by haberman 8y ago
I agree that we all have blind spots and that diversity in decision-makers can help correct these. If this principle was applied consistently across any dimension where such blind spots are likely to exist, I would be on board. However when some axes of diversity are elevated over others, based not on likeliness of blind spots but rather on unrelated grievances ("historically marginalized subgroups"), the whole exercise takes on a character of social activism. Social activism is important, but has blind spots of its own, and the culture of activism these days seems increasingly insistent on not recognizing them.
- dontreact 8y agoI think gender, race, class, and sexual orientation are probably the most important dimensions. I gave very specific reasons why race is important in my field of medicine, and I don't know why you think I am highlighting it as an important dimension because of historical marginalization. What are other ones that should be as elevated?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- haberman 8y agoI think I drew that conclusion because you mentioned marginalization four times. I think political orientation leads to lots of blind spots. If it is important that businesses have representation of their user-base, I think diversity of political opinion is a natural axis to consider.
- dontreact 8y agoI think I agree with this. But I don’t think you need proportional representation, only representation. I think the percentage of people who vote republican is probably well north of 10% for most of GAFA, and if it’s not it’s worth looking into why.